Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 6, 2022

21STCV11793

-Motion to Compel Defendant Matthew Lhullier’s Responses to Request for Production (Set one) filed by Plaintiff Bryn Torres Friedenberg

-Motion to Deem Request for Admission (Set One) Admitted as Defendant Matthew Lhullier filed by Plaintiff Bryn Torres Friedenberg 

Both motions are granted.

Defendant Lhullier is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 30 days after the date of this order.

The Request for Admissions (Set One) are deemed admitted as to Defendant Matthew Lhullier.

Sanctions are denied with respect to the motion to compel responses to the request for production and granted with respect to the motion to deem request for admission admitted. 

Sanctions in the amount of $511.65 are awarded against Defendant Matthew Lhullier. These sanctions are payable within 30 days after the date of this order.

Moving party is provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order. 

This is an action for strict liability, negligence, and strict liability for an animal with known dangerous propensities arising from a dog attack which took place in January 2019. Plaintiff Bryn Torres Friedenberg filed her Complaint against Defendants Matthew Lhullier and Patricia Rivera on March 26, 2021.

Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel Defendant Matthew Lhullier to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (“RPDs”) and to Deem Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) admitted on September 30, 2022.

Moving Arguments

Plaintiff originally propounded the first set of RPDs and RFAs on Lhullier on April 15, 2022. To date, Lhullier has not responded.

Opposing Arguments

None.

 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

A court may not award monetary sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.010 and 2023.030 standing alone or read together. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2022, No. B310118) 2022 WL 12010415, at *17.) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to deem requests for admissions admitted if a party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed failed to serve a timely response to the request for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).)

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to RPDs from Defendant Lhullier and to deem RFAs admitted.

Here, Plaintiff is entitled to orders compelling Lhullier’s responses to RPDs. Plaintiff’s request is supported by a declaration counsel. Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Lhullier on April 15, 2022. (Shahriari Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Plaintiff’s counsel granted multiple extensions with the final response deadline set for June 10, 2022. (Id., ¶5.) Lhullier failed to respond on that date. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a motion to compel until now because she believed they were near settlement. (Id., ¶6.) After settlement negotiations broke down, Plaintiff again requested discovery responses by July 29, 2022. (Id.) After Lhullier again failed to provide a response, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. (Id.)

Because Lhullier has served no response to Plaintiff’s RPDs, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. 

The same analysis applies to Plaintiff’s request to deem its requests for admissions admitted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s motions are admitted.  

Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.030, even together with Section 2023.010, absent another provision of the Discovery Act that authorizes the imposition of sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (Court of Appeal, Second District (2022) 2022 WL 12010415.) Sanctions for with respect to requests for production are only authorized against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses. (See Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c)). Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to deem requests for admissions admitted if a party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed failed to serve a timely response to the request for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).)

Here, the request for sanctions as to the RPDs is denied because these motions were not opposed. The request for sanctions as to the RFAs is granted because Lhullier failed to serve a timely response to Plaintiff’s RFAs. Plaintiff requests $1,372.50 for 2.5 hours of attorney time at $525 per hour and filing fees. The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $511.65 (1.5 hours at $300 per hour plus filing fees of $61.65.) against Defendant.